Search form

Featured Topics

To promote stable, constructive labor-management relations through the resolution and prevention of labor disputes in a manner that gives full effect to the collective-bargaining rights of employees, unions, and agencies.

This matter is before the Authority on an exception to an
award of Arbitrator Hugh R. Catherwood filed by the Union under
section 7122(a) of the Federal Service Labor-Management
Relations Statute (the Statute) and part 2425 of the
Authority's Rules and Regulations. The Agency did not file an
opposition to the Union's exception.

The Arbitrator denied a grievance over a counseling letter
received by the grievant regarding his use of sick leave. For
the following reasons, we find that the Union has failed to
establish that the award is deficient. We will, therefore,
deny the exception.

II. Background and Arbitrator's Award

On October 23, 1990, the grievant received a letter
entitled "Sick Leave Counseling" from his supervisor. The
letter stated that a review of the grievant's sick leave usage
for the period January 1, 1990, to that date showed that he had
earned 84 hours of sick leave and had used 160 hours.
Summarizing the grievant's sick leave usage, the letter noted
that the grievant's record showed 27 absences on sick leave, 7 of which were supported by written statements
from physicians.

A grievance was filed over the counseling. The grievance
was not resolved and was submitted to arbitration.

As a preliminary matter, the Arbitrator determined that
the grievance was procedurally arbitrable. The parties agreed
that the following issue was before the Arbitrator: "Was the
counselling of the [g]rievant, . . . for just cause and in
accordance with the Master Labor Agreement and other applicable
laws, rules, and regulations?" Award at 1.

On the merits, the Arbitrator concluded that he could
"find no reason to fault [the grievant's supervisor] . . . for
imposing a non-disciplinary penalty." Id. at 2. The
Arbitrator noted the testimony of the grievant's supervisor
that, while all the grievant's absences had been authorized,
the supervisor believed that the grievant had not actually been
ill on some occasions. In this regard, the supervisor
testified that the "so-called doctor certificates . . . had in
fact been merely forms signed by a nurse and gave no indication
of the nature or degree of the claimed illness." Id. The
Arbitrator also noted the supervisor's testimony that the
grievant's absences had caused her to assign his work to
another employee when that person was needed at his regular
post, that the grievant had often taken sick leave on Mondays
and Fridays, and that when the grievant's sick leave was
exhausted, he had frequently taken annual leave or leave
without pay.

The Arbitrator concluded that the grievant's absences fit
the criterion of Section 24.03(a)(5) of the parties' collective
bargaining agreement regarding identification and correction of
sick leave abuse.(*) That subsection provides that one indication
of sick leave abuse is "[i]ntermittent sick leave use of short
duration with vague excuses." The Arbitrator acknowledged that
the "fact that the [g]rievant took leave without pay on some
occasions certainly indicates that at those times he was
genuinely ill," but, the Arbitrator noted, "from the point of
view of management, an employee who is so often absent,
requiring a substitute to be taken off work where he is badly
needed, is simply an unfair burden." Award at 2. Accordingly,
the Arbitrator denied the grievance.

III. The Union's Exception

The Union contends that the Arbitrator's award is contrary
to law, that the Arbitrator exceeded his authority and that
"the tolerable bounds of reasonableness were breached by the
Arbitrator in the rendering of the award." Exception at 1.

The Union states that the counseling letter refers to the
grievant's alleged use of sick leave during periods of heavy
workload and in connection with weekends and holidays. The
Union argues that these allegations meet the "requirements" set
forth in section 24.03(a)(3) and (4) of the collective
bargaining agreement and not the criterion set forth in section
24.03(a)(5) relied upon by the Arbitrator. Accordingly, the
Union argues that the Arbitrator exceeded his authority under
law and the parties' collective bargaining agreement by
determining that the Agency had just cause to counsel the
grievant because his sick leave use met the criterion set forth
in Section 24.03(a)(5). The Union notes that Section 7.06(a)
of the parties' collective bargaining agreement provides that
an "arbitrator's authority is limited to deciding only the
issue or issues considered in the formal grievance." The Union
argues that the only issue properly before the Arbitrator was
whether the grievant's conduct constituted leave abuse under
section 24.03(a)(3) and (4) because those were the only
indications of sick leave abuse specifically described in the
counseling letter.

IV. Analysis and Conclusions

We conclude that the Union has not established that the
Arbitrator's award is deficient. The Union asserts that the
award is "contrary to and not within the spirit, intent and
general character of the law." Exception at 1. However, the
Union cites no law with which the award allegedly conflicts and
none is apparent to us. Accordingly, we reject the Union's
assertion. See, for example, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Springfield,
Illinois and National Air Traffic Controllers Association,
39 FLRA 1036, 1041 (1991).

The Union also asserts that the Arbitrator exceeded his
authority. An arbitrator exceeds his or her authority when he
or she issues an affirmative order that goes beyond the scope
of the matter submitted to arbitration. See, for example,
General Services Administration, Region VII, Fort Worth, Texas
and American Federation of Government Employees, Council 236,
35 FLRA 1259, 1265-66 (1990).

In this case, the parties stipulated that the Arbitrator
was to decide whether the counseling of the grievant was for
just cause in accordance with the parties' collective
bargaining agreement; no specific section of the agreement was
cited. The underlying formal grievance in this matter
generally alleged that the counseling letter violated the
parties' collective bargaining agreement. We conclude that the
award is directly responsive to the issue as the parties framed
it. In this regard, the Arbitrator considered the background
and entire content of the counseling letter, including the
letter's references to the grievant's absences during periods
of heavy workload and in connection with weekends. The
counseling letter did not reference any specific subsections of
the collective bargaining agreement, but rather noted the
grievant's pattern of absences, including their duration and
frequent lack of a doctor's certificate justifying the absence.
Consequently, we find that the Union has not demonstrated that
the Arbitrator's award relates to matters which were not
submitted to arbitration or part of the formal grievance.
Accordingly, the Union's assertion that the Arbitrator exceeded
his authority provides no basis for finding the award
deficient.

The Union's assertion that the award is unreasonable
constitutes nothing more than disagreement with the findings
and conclusions of the Arbitrator and provides no basis for
finding the award deficient. SeePanama Canal Commission and
Panama Area Metals Trades Council, 34 FLRA 237 (1990).

We will, therefore, deny the Union's exception.

V. Decision

The Union's exception is denied.

APPENDIX

SECTION 24.03: IDENTIFICATION AND CORRECTION OF SICK LEAVE
ABUSE

An employee will not be required to furnish a doctor's
certificate to substantiate a request for three days or less
sick leave, unless there is a documented reason to believe the
employee is abusing sick leave as set forth below.

a. There are certain sick leave trends which, when
appearing on a continual basis, could indicate sick leave
abuse.

(1) Absence after paydays.

(2) Sick leave before or after holidays.

(3) Monday-Friday sick leave.

(4) Absences during heavy workloads or undesirable
duties.

(5) Intermittent sick leave use of short duration
with vague excuses.

b. When a supervisor suspects that an employee is abusing
sick leave, he/she should look further into the individual's
past leave records, using available sick leave data to provide
more information. The supervisor will also explore the causes
of the employee's chronic absenteeism and assist in resolving
the conflict, provide additional personal reminders of the
importance of careful use of sick leave, etc.

c. Once a supervisor has identified sick leave abuse, the
supervisor will counsel the employee with respect to the use of
sick leave, and a record of the counseling will be recorded on
the 971 file. Bargaining unit employees will not be required
to provide doctor's certificates for sick leave requests solely
on the basis of a mechanized leave usage report that indicates
the employee's use of sick leave is abnormal.

d. If the sick leave record subsequent to the counseling
does not show elimination of sick leave abuse, the employee
will be given written notification requiring the employee to
provide doctor's certificates for all absences for which sick
leave is requested. This notice should contain justification as to why the employee was given
the additional requirement, such as stating the number of hours
of sick leave used in a specific period, his sick leave pattern
and balance, etc. The requirement to furnish doctor's
certificates, once imposed, will be reviewed at least every six
months to determine if it should be continued. At the time of
the review, the employee will be counseled and advised in
writing if the requirement is to be continued or cancelled.
The supervisor should take care to be firm, fair, and
consistent not only in resolving sick leave abuse but in all
aspects of sick leave administration.

FOOTNOTES: (If blank, the decision does not
have footnotes.)

*/ Section 24.03 is set forth in its entirety in
the Appendix to this decision.